Something to Think About

 

Thinking what might lead to violent actions, involves a lot of possibilities and differences of opinion. Maybe it takes a combination of things that come together in one, weapon-toting individual, who generally is male when it involves hurting more than one person and generally random strangers.

There are seven Saturdays, counting this one, before the election for President of the United States. Below, I have issues, some could impact violence. Many don't seem they could as I thought on them. All impact quality of life one way or the other, which might be a factor in violence. Obviously, I won't be touching on all of them. You might look at the list and see which matter the most to you.

I will share no thoughts on personalities of the candidates or who to vote for, because I feel issues are where we need to concentrate. So many say they'll vote for this or that one, but have no idea what they will actually do in supposedly forming a perfect nation (which we know won't happen as nations are made up of imperfect humans--well, maybe a few perfect but I've yet to meet that one).

Because this blog has readers from around the world, I will try to choose topics that could apply anywhere.

After the election for a long time, no more politics, no matter who wins. I do not want to be one of those who lives on hate. I will hope that whoever wins, it will be good for the country. and the world.

Some of the issues listed can lead to increasing/decreasing violence. Some might join together in a blog. I think all have varying levels of importance to voters and life.

• climate change
• mental illness
• health care
• abortion
  
• taxes 
• voting IDs
  
• educational system
• socialism/capitalism/communism
  
• poverty
• games/movies
• globalism-- one world government
  
• news media
• policing
• legal system
• immigration
• economy
• divided country
• environment
  
• guns. 

None of those are easy to break down and discuss, but I'm going to start with the last one: guns. In my country, that involves a Constitutional Amendment, which was ratified along with others in the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Second Amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Rather than go into our history with regulations, state and court opinions, I give you a link to a pretty extensive look at it on Wikipedia. Some don't like it; but this time, it seemed to give a lot of validated information. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Okay, now for how guns relate to violence or they don't. They have been used in most mass killings. The ones used tend to look like military weapons as they can fire multiple rounds without cocking. None are fully automatic rifles unless they have been modified (finger on trigger keeps it shooting) as those are illegal in the US for ownership by citizens.

For 2024 statistics, 527 people have been killed in such shootings.1,755 have been wounded in 432 shootings. Victims have been all ages but many have been in schools and children. Some of the shootings are gang related. A few involve someone the perpetrator wanted to kill with innocent bystanders caught in the action. Of course, there are also those who use their guns, or other weapons to kill one person, most often a family member or ex-partner.

Some of the shooters should not have been allowed to buy any guns, if background checks meant what they should. Some of the shooters got their guns through family members and some of those enablers are being charged also-- as they should be, (In my opinion).  There is also the black market and the most recent attempted assassin, evidently got his from the mail (from another country)-- neither of which are legal, but if you want to kill, legal doesn't matter to you.

Background checks have been resisted by some of the most ardent pro-gun people who have a strong need for guns to protect themselves and others. Some even believe they might be needed against an out of control government.

The argument against confiscating all guns comes down to ... the real outlaws will never turn theirs over. There is also fear that signing anything admitting to having a gun can end up with confiscations as has happened in other countries. 

There are those on the anti-gun side who want all guns taken by the government. The problem with that reasoning is knives, machetes, bombs and even vehicles can be used to kill by those with warped thinking. What stops them?

To me, fear and hate are the main reasons why the gun situation is never settled.

Now, about my own beliefs where it comes to guns. I believe in the ownership but not of guns only meant for killing people, like the AK /AR types. But, watch how that gets defined as the 22 Mag that I use when at the farm allows me to shoot as fast as I can pull the trigger  to protect our sheep from marauding coyotes, yes, they do kill sheep when they can.

I would be fine with no more AK 47s or AR 15s in this country, but they are in so many hands that I am not sure it's possible. I also believe in background checks that should involve animal or human abusers, red-flag laws. The issue is making the background check work. Many gun owners would have no problem with that.

The Christmas when I had turned 12, I got my first .22 rifle. I asked for it since our sheep were having their guts ripped out by the neighbors' dogs,  that were allowed to run free. 

One of the main memories I have is walking with my .22 to the back of our property, hoping I'd see those German Shepherds when the sheep were out grazing. I was by myself, trilliums were blooming on the side hill and no people or dogs were to be seen. No black bears either, as they did also patrol our property. I felt no fear because of that gun. To kill a bear with it would require a perfect shot, but I wasn't worried.

I still have that gun and now there are a lot more in our home of various types, but no AK47s or AR15s. We have no need for them. I do though have a loaded handgun within reach if someone broke into the house and didn't immediately leave. I can only imagine shooting in self-defense, which is how I consider the times I shot at a coyote to get it to leave our sheep alone.

I don't hunt, never have. Ranch Boss used to but hasn't for years. For us, guns are for self-defense or fun target practice. I believe in gun ownership. I also believe in gun safes, which we also have for storing guns we don't need handy for use. I also don't keep my finger on the trigger until I am ready to fire it. More than a few have shot themselves by making that mistake.

Knowing my revolver was handy was why I didn't fear being by myself when Ranch Boss was on business trips. Because  we learned when we moved here that there had been two women shot at a business and a woman raped not that far from our Arizona home, I could have been afraid with good reason. 

Some think they'd never need a gun for protection. I hope for their sake they are right. So far, I never have, but it's given me security many times over many years just to know it's there. As for shooting someone innocent, if they broke into my house, they are not innocent by definition. And, outside the house, I'd never shoot anyone. They would have to show themselves a danger.

To have a gun means you should be trained to use it. For those afraid of guns, don't get one. Be a good shot when you do have one and only use it when needed. Do NOT point a gun at anyone unless you know you could pull the trigger if they approached closer.

For me, gun ownership is an important issue when I vote. Not the only one, but important. Oh and photos here are at our Oregon farm and in 2004 (I think lol) with same .22 that I got when I was twelve. Fortunately, Ranch Boss is good at gun repair and has kept it in great shape.

Dreams and Topics

 

Last blog, I said this one would not be on political thinking... I meant it at the time and had a blog from something at our desert home, but then a dream happened. I don't ever ignore dreams and what they might be telling me; so I'll share that here-- well, part of it.

A person is trying to get a friend to change their bad habits. They might say they would but then it'd not happen. There are two ways someone might change. One is love of someone. Another is reading something that convinces that person this is going the wrong way. 

Well, there is a third when they see it for themselves and the change then is more permanent.

Then I realized this applies to a country when it's going the wrong way. It has to see it for itself, cannot be forced from outside as it won't last.

When I woke up, I knew this applied to my country with its massive debt, which last I read was $34 trillion. Let that sink in as to how much money that is; and although we are a wealthy country, by many measures, what does it mean to owe that much? Who does the government owe it to? More on that below.

When the Fed increases the money supply, which is part of its job description when needed, what does that mean for inflation or the value of the dollar?

People talk about inflation but what causes our dollars to be worth less and less? I have some books I bought years and years ago that cost under $2 (price still on the cover) that today would be $20. Was it that they cost more to make, or the lack of value in my dollars-- more likely they cost more because dollars were worth less? When America went off the gold standard, supposedly for trade and freedom of marketing, what replaced it? A nebulous concept of the country's net worth? Who decided that?

I am no economist and only know what I read, which can go many different directions. but I do understand our dollars are constantly losing value.

When Congress figured out it could borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, it forgot to clarify how it'd pay it back or if it would. When Congress made a law that it did not have to vote in their own wage increase but instead it was automatic with cost of living, it left out the rest of us, including SS, which is supposed to relate to cost of living, but not what people need to buy but rather a lot of other things that don't relate to the real cost of living for the elderly.

Our biggest debt holders were China and Japan. Added of course, with ourselves with bonds, which get paid when and by whom? What if we can't pay? 

Finally, do either of the current Presidential candidates have proposals for the debt or is it all about gimmes to voters, which will get them votes? That should not have been a question. Who is seriously looking at the debt or will that all come after disaster strikes, and we know it can based on other countries. BUT not on my watch is all many care about...

They might though care about this if they took the time to look, which I doubt. If you want to see how inflation might be linked to money supply, check out this link that Ranch Boss found: How M1 Money Supply and Inflation are Linked.  Research it further if inflation is of concern to you.

image on top is one of our barrel cactus. Such fun to watch them take on their full identities.

Voting as cultural issue

our photo when the saguaro yields its fruit for the birds, eventually animals, and insects-- in the fullness of time.
 

Following along with the theme of the last blog, this one is again about what is happening in our country and how is it portrayed by the internet. The difference is I want to explain a bit about my background, something we rarely know about those giving opinions.

I've mentioned before that I was a registered Democrat from the time I was allowed to vote until 2018 when I left the party over issues where I simply didn't like how it was going. I didn't see a way to be a Republican either for the same reasons-- hence unaffiliated, which means I can't vote in Oregon primaries. It was worth it to me as I am an issues voter and always have been, though I've seen how partisan groups use these issues in ways I just don't get.

So, why get into this now? Two big ones arose within the last week. One a presidential debate and its aftermath and the second a Supreme Court decision, also impacting the Presidency of the United States. The fall out has been great and not yet really decided; but to me, the big thing is how what happened has been presented, especially to those who get all their news from one side or the other of whatever happens. 

First, I did not watch the debate. I do not watch political speeches and debates are all about rhetoric. I did though see the first answer Biden gave. I saw no sign of the cold they later claimed he had. I also saw the answer as vague and again political spiel. I turned it off before Trump spoke.

The political rhetoric the next morning was not surprising to me. They did accept that Biden did poorly and lost his train of thought frequently, but their big point was Trump lied a LOT. What they never tell is what were the lies and also who declared them to be lies. Might two people, on different sides of the political divide see truth differently? I guess if you are on one side or the other, you don't care. 

Now, it's been a week since the debate and the excuses for Biden's performance have grown. Who believes them? Pretty much those who want to.

The question asked was one debate a big deal. Probably not if there hadn't been so much talk before it about what was going on with his cognitive reasoning. Where powerful people often get others to cover for them will we ever know the truth? We sure know the spin if we care to look. 

Biden has evidently declared he'll have no events after 8pm. So what if it's an emergency?

Second big issue was the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. This one went right along party lines-- despite Roberts saying earlier that the court is not partisan. Maybe only he believes that. 

Afterwards, the panic started from the left. Maddow fears seal teams sent after political enemies. She also said she wondered if she could be sent to a concentration camp? Apparently no concern if Biden stays in power or Harris, which is the latest question brought up. What about her for President if he passes on running. It depends on how much attention you have paid to her political career as you probably see it.

The fear of Trump for wars or worse determines a lot of how someone sees all of this. The fact that he avoided wars when in office does not prove the future reactions, and frankly what he did after his loss is not reassuring to anybody-- or should not be. 

A big question also involves the Heritage Foundations 2025 Project and how much will it impact what Trump tries to do. If you don't know what that is, you might want to look it up. Do we want a religiously controlled country? Earlier citizens did not. What about today? I have read Trump does not agree with it, but these days how do we know what we can trust?

If Biden resigns as a candidate, then who picks up the mantle? Supposedly, most likely is his vice president. How do voters feel about that? I keep coming back to a quote that she has used many times with great pride. "what can be, unburdened by what has been." What the heck does that mean? I also resent how the Democratic party would not do debates earlier to avoid all of this coming out right at the last with little time to look at other options.

I think the Supreme Court decision made sense with the limitations it imposed. For immunity, it had to be a part of the presidential duties-- not personal issues. I've listened to those who claim it could be anything, but that's not what they said. It will be further defined probably and likely satisfy no one.

Does any of this say anything about how I will vote in November-- and I always vote? Not really, I am an issues voter and I haven't written about those this time around. It's a disturbing time, and I just want to be sure voters are informed and not just propagandized.